Personally I knew the first- but I didn't think about the 2nd, because I believe the proper response to a trade war is nuclear war, at least given a secular world worshiping mammon instead of God. At least by responding to a trade war with nukes over the factories of your enemies, you can be damned sure they'll never out-produce you again.

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted that your anti-capitalism zealotry is irrational and sadly outweighs your Christian faith. Suggest reordering those and putting God back in position numero uno, where He rightfully belongs.

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted that your anti-capitalism zealotry is irrational and sadly outweighs your Christian faith. Suggest reordering those and putting God back in position numero uno, where He rightfully belongs.

That doesn't do capitalism any good [yuku.com], since capitalism is only idolatry dressed up as an economic system, but I guess it would be a less violent approach.

That doesn't do capitalism any good, since capitalism is only idolatry dressed up as an economic system, but I guess it would be a less violent approach.

Your pope would seem to disagree with you -- from your linkie:"Catholic social doctrine has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority. Naturally, profit is legitimate and, in just measure, necessary for economic development."The problem isn't with capitalism, it's with charity, and there still not being enough of it to make sure th

Your pope would seem to disagree with you -- from your linkie:"Catholic social doctrine has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority. Naturally, profit is legitimate and, in just measure, necessary for economic development."The problem isn't with capitalism, it's with charity, and there still not being enough of it to make sure the world is fed.

Profit is legitimate to be sure- after all, even a single worker is working for profit. But a Stock Market isn't an equitable di

And thus, should government do any less? In other words, why should a government not also command us not to sin, that is, pass laws and regulations against the sin and punish the guilty?

Because God is perfect and omnipotent; the government is just us. Society, and the government it creates, exist only to make our lives easier, more pleasant, and happier than what our lives would be as hermits. The laws and regulations that government create exist only to serve those ends; they have nothing to do with "sin" or morality, only pragmatism. And that is how laws should be judged, by their practical effect upon the behavior of the people, not by how closely they hew to a certain morality.

Because God is perfect and omnipotent; the government is just us. Society, and the government it creates, exist only to make our lives easier, more pleasant, and happier than what our lives would be as hermits. The laws and regulations that government create exist only to serve those ends; they have nothing to do with "sin" or morality, only pragmatism. And that is how laws should be judged, by their practical effect upon the behavior of the people, not by how closely they hew to a certain morality.

And also, from the behavior of the people alone, this little 234 year old experiment in allowing self-government is an abject failure on making lives easier, more pleasant, and happier.

If our system has truly failed on all these fronts, then where are the riots? Where are the mass desertions from the military? Why aren't the dissatisfied masses rising up to sweep away the old order? Why did the vast majority vote for one of the two major party (read: status quo) candidates? Why are the workers not seizing the means of production?

The answer: Most people don't believe our system is broken beyond repair. Most people still believe in the fundamental principles of a free, self-governing societ

No, those aren't riots. I'm talking about riots, the kind that make the LA rioters look like children. They have happened many times in our history; they aren't unprecedented. And we are seeing nothing of the sort. What you have seen in the last 8 years aren't large or widespread enough to force real, lasting social change.

I expect more when the Famine of 2009 hits this summer.

I read the article, and I can say (as a former farmer) that the propane shortage makes sense. If you can't dry your crop, you can't store it. If this were widespread, it would result in m

But, as a former grain futures trader, I look at the futures prices, and see nothing of the sort on the horizon. If there is to be a famine caused by events which have already taken place, they should be priced into the futures contracts. But they are not. Look at these charts: September 09 Corn [cbot.com], September 09 Soybeans [cbot.com], and September 09 Wheat [cbot.com]. You'll see that there are no supply shocks priced into these contracts. And there are thousands of futures traders who would be more t

I'm not real sure I trust the futures markets to know their ass from their teakettle after last September.

The massive decline in prices was caused by speculators--hit hard by the stock market decline, massive deleveraging, and hedge fund redemptions--pulling out of the market. It had almost nothing to do with the fundamental supply or demand for the underlying commodity.

But, were there to be a significant supply disruption, you would see an increase in prices. The futures market is unlike the stock market, in that eventually someone has got to deliver the actual grain, and someone has to take delivery. If a far

The massive decline in prices was caused by speculators--hit hard by the stock market decline, massive deleveraging, and hedge fund redemptions--pulling out of the market. It had almost nothing to do with the fundamental supply or demand for the underlying commodity.

Yes, but it was not foreseeable. Assuming that anybody can foresee the future at this point, and basing your predictions on what some market completely disconnected from the facts on the ground are saying, is a bit outlandish. Rather-

It certainly was predictable. Every speculative bubble will pop. There is simply no way around that. Eventually, everyone who can invest in a particular market has, and there is no further inflow of capital. As soon as that happens, the bubble pops and the market declines rapidly. There are countless thousands of examples of this happening again and again throughout history.

Don't forget, a lot of people made a lot of money betting that the market would decline. Every person who sold near the top of the mark

Anyway, if you knew of the coming crisis, the best way to profit is to buy under-priced futures contracts. Any farmer could more than make up for the loss of his crop, and wouldn't have to flee the country.

But if you knew that all of those futures contracts were just lies- not backed by actual commodities, because the actual commodities don't exist, wouldn't the real value of those futures contracts be zero?

The commodity futures market isn't completely disconnected from the supply/d

But if you knew that all of those futures contracts were just lies- not backed by actual commodities, because the actual commodities don't exist, wouldn't the real value of those futures contracts be zero?

Of course. And if you believe that, you can short the futures. You'll make money all the way down. If there were any truth to what you're saying, some traders, who know what you know, would be betting on catastrophe. They're not.

And if a large number of those contracts were worth nothing, you're saying that would raise the price of the contracts that were actually worth nothing?

You're misunderstanding the issue. According to the article, the grain has already spoiled. It's gone. To keep this a secret, you require a massive, nation-wide conspiracy. I'm going to go with Occam's Razor on this one.

Who would be stupid enough to lend those traders shares? Especially in this regulatory environment, where anybody caught shorting would likely end up with their head on a pike when the riots start?

I don't know why you think so, but shorting is a widely practiced and accepted form of trading, both in the futures market and equity markets. There's no worry about getting "caught shorting". There are regulations which impose some rules about how shorting must be done. But it is very legal and common.

Or, if you don't like shorting on principle, you could always buy some put options on commodity futures. They go up when the commodity goes down, and you don't have to borrow shares from anyone. You get the a

I don't know why you think so, but shorting is a widely practiced and accepted form of trading, both in the futures market and equity markets. There's no worry about getting "caught shorting". There are regulations which impose some rules about how shorting must be done. But it is very legal and common.

Shorting may be legal- and common- but legal and right are two separate things. Most trading markets started as con men working down on the docks- and morally, is still in the same place.

But that's still making money without production- which is the main thing I'm against.

Which is fine. I'm not advocating that you personally should try to make money in the futures market, only stating the fact that someone is. There are thousands of people, who you call "con men", who are trying to make as much money as possible in the futures market. These people, who pour over every weather report, every USDA report, every seed sale, and every possible bit of information related to the production of commodities, will exploit any inefficiency of the market to make a profit.

And the problem with relying on charity alone is that charity, like pure capitalism or pure communism, just doesn't work past the 2nd degree of friendship- I'm perfectly willing to give to a charity that I know of, and they're perfectly willing to support the people who come to them, but that is where it stops.

And what the heck is wrong with that? If everyone did it, then still everyone would get taken care of.

>> Because he wanted our love to be real.> But then why limit the love the way that seems to be built in to humanity- to two degrees of friendship?

Built in, or picked up after the Fall? Our love is limited thusly due to our suspicious nature. I give God the benefit of the doubt and assume that He didn't create us that way. Imagine if there were thousands of people in the Garden, and they looked differently at anyone beyond their friends and their friends' friends. I can't imagine that. I think thin

Built in, or picked up after the Fall? Our love is limited thusly due to our suspicious nature.

Hmm, that's an interesting point- though I'd point out that pre-fall civilizations, the few we know about, seemed to also have this "fear of the other". But I'm not sure if that truly is pre-fall; or due to 10,000 years of fighting off totalitarian agriculture invading their lands.

. I give God the benefit of the doubt and assume that He didn't create us that way. Imagine if there were tho